Slashdot Mirror
Monty Wants To Save MySQL
An anonymous reader writes "It seems as if the MySQL author is trying hard to win back control over MySQL. In his blog he calls upon the MySQL users to 'Help keep the Internet free' by signing his petition. He fears that if Oracle buys Sun they automatically get MySQL which would spell doom for the project. But I have have mixed feelings with this call for help, because after all — who sold MySQL in the first place?"
...First at last
For the sake of topic titles, I'd rather if Monty saved Python.
we still have pgsql, right? yeah, migration, but still free/libre, right? first post? nah...
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
Will this show up every 2 weeks on /.
Maybe he shouldn't had sold it in the first time, so he wouldn't be crying it back now?
It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.
I, too, would love to sell something for a billion dollars and then have it given back.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
He also spammed everybody who's ever been dumb enough to let him get anywhere near their e-mail address with the same self-serving, hypocritical screed...
This has been hashed out before. Monty wants to force the legitimate owner of MySQL to give up its rights to the documentation and proprietary parts of the source code so he can deploy his own commercial product using MariaDB. It's that simple. He got a big payoff when he cashed out and now he wants to double dip by getting back for free what he has already been compensated for.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
He got paid a large amount of money for MySQL, and now he's not satisfied. MySQL is under GPL v. 2, so there isn't a problem. If Sun takes it in a bad direction, it can be forked.
Find free books.
don't Monty me on this deal!
If you had never sold MySQL to Sun in the first place, it wouldn't be in the position it is now in. I hope the money was worth it.
Why are you so concerned now? Your chance to do something came and went, and so did you.
Also, I rather think you overrate MySQL in that petition post, but thats just mho.
Why doesn't he just fork the whole project?
The article addresses the forking issue.
It's called PostgreSQL. It's fast, what's even more important, it's correct and it's tried and tested. Get it here.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
He wants to build another business on MySQL and force Oracle into letting him do it.
This is greed masquerading as virtue.
He got his money and now he sees an opportunity to get his code back that he sold and the shyster is doing what he can to get it back.
He has his own db, MariaDB and if it's any good then he shouldn't care since its whole purpose is that it's a replacement to MySQL.
I've also noticed he's not allowing comments on his blog that counter his points no matter how mature and well presented they are.
I really hope Oracle gets the ok, if for any reason to shit in this guy's Cheerios. I won't have anything to do anything he's working on.
"In January, 2008, Sun legally acquired MySQL for $1 billion."
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Since InnoDB (the only proper storage engine in the default MySQL distribution) is owned by Oracle already, why bother?
If he'd wanted to retain control then why did he sell mySQL to Sun? Once that sale was completed he gave up his rights and claims. He certainly didn't have a problem with a corporation owning it in exchange for a cool billion earlier.
What Sun said they wanted to do with it is immaterial; Monty's rights to do anything more than complain vocally were terminated by his own hand the instant he signed the contract, and were made irreversible when he deposited that check.
The fact of the matter is that Oracle doesn't give more than about a shit-and-a-half about mySQL. Oracle cares about Enterprise installations and mySQL not only ain't there now, it never will be. Even Foxbase^W^H MS SQL Server spanks it 37 ways to next Tuesday in Enterprise and Data Warehousing environments.
Meanwhile, if mySQL really is and has remained open source, then it's still open, so Monty should STFU and fork it already. If not, then he himself killed it and there's no one else to blame.
Once you sell your 2CV to someone, you have no more say in what's done with the car, even if it turns out to have been bought by Top Gear and they want to blow it up. Once you take the money, you don't get to complain anymore. If it had meant that much to Monty then why did he sell?
Cake: have vs. eat.
The comment moderation on his blog is just icing on that cake -- only comments supporting poor, ickle widdle Monty's untenable position are allowed through.
And for those who still refuse to change the "evil Oracle" record, The base Oracle DB charge is $350 (Std) / $950 (Ent) per user or $17,500 (Std) / $47,500 (Ent) per processor -- annually, not including required support and other charges -- Oracle doesn't give a shit about mySQL and the paltry few thousand that supporting it might bring in.
If it's really still Open Sauce and the community doesn't like what happens with it then mySQL will fork. Again. Except that it will need a new core team since the current core team has bills to pay and enjoys employment during an economic mess.
So MySQL sold for a cool $1 billion in whatever it was, and now he wants to get it back for free? This is so funny it may just work.
Why doesn't he just fork the whole project?
He has, it's called something like mariadb. Two problems: No one has ever heard of his fork, and what he really wants is the proprietary parts that were developed when mysql (the corp) was under his control.
He apparently went through the database of everyone who had ever submitted a bug report and vacuumed up email addresses, because that's the only way he would have known me to send me his appeal. That's not stooping low: that's slithering.
Quite why you'd pick MySQL if you wanted a database to incorporate into your product instead of SQLite or PostgreSQL, I have no idea.
Shared web hosting providers offer only MySQL, not PostgreSQL. If you want PostgreSQL, that's a lot of money to move up to a virtual dedicated server.
SQLite isn't intended for high levels of concurrency; its locking is much coarser. One gets plenty of "OperationalError: database is locked". And it only recently gained support for foreign key constraints and data type constraints (by compiling them into triggers) in a newer version that hasn't yet made it into long-term-supported server operating systems such as CentOS 5.x and Ubuntu 8.04.
There is a third problem. No one is going to risk their business on Monty's fork or sign over their patches because the risk is so great that he will sell every one out again. The fact that he is fully in bed with Microsoft on this makes it even more likely. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
Shared web hosting providers offer only MySQL, not PostgreSQL. If you want PostgreSQL, that's a lot of money to move up to a virtual dedicated server.
Not entirely true, lots of shared web hosts also provide PostgreSQL, but completely irrelevant. I have never seen a shared web host that runs software that bundles MySQL. They may have third party software that uses MySQL via PHP, for example, but this does not need a commercial license.
SQLite isn't intended for high levels of concurrency; its locking is much coarser. One gets plenty of "OperationalError: database is locked". And it only recently gained support for foreign key constraints and data type constraints (by compiling them into triggers) in a newer version that hasn't yet made it into long-term-supported server operating systems such as CentOS 5.x and Ubuntu 8.04.
Again, you're talking about having SQLite installed already, not bundling it with your commercial code. If you need a small db, you can link SQLite directly into your app. If you need a bigger db, you can require the user has Oracle or PostgreSQL installed. You don't to ship a db with your app. If you want to interface with MySQL, then you use one of the permissively-licensed MySQL client libraries. You only need a commercial license for MySQL if you are going to be shipping a copy of MySQL along with your code.
As for foreign key constraints, you realise that these are still pretty new in MySQL, right? Until around 2002 or so, MySQL users and developers were claiming that no one needed them...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Maybe the really crap ones. I have shared hosting with PostgreSQL for a few bucks a month. I mean, Cpanel has full PostgreSQL support, it's not like the hosting provider has to do a lot of work.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
So, Monty uses dual licensing to turn his open source software into a profitable company, sells that company for a billion dollars, and now he's suddenly concerned with freedom. Oracle buying MySQL may be bad, but I don't think Monty has much credibility in opposing it.
Background: MySQL is an open-source database used by millions. Originally developed by closely-held Swedish company MySQL AB, it was sold to Sun Microsystems Inc in January 2008. Sun is now in the process of being acquired Oracle Corporation. The deal is still awaiting European regulatory approval.
Not happy with selling MySQL AB to Sun for a cool billion, Monty Widenius is now trolling regulators, the media, and anyone who will listen in his efforts to get back control of "his" database (without having to give back the money).
European regulators still don't "get" the open-source software model
The Europeans are holding up their approval of the Sun-Oracle deal because of concerns that the acquisition will reduce competition in the database industry. Oracle Corp, which is already the dominant player in large-scale corporate databases, already "controls" several open-source database products such as Oracle Berkeley DB and the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MysQL
The reason I put "controls" in quotes is because it's very difficult to actually exert full control an open-source project, especially one that is licensed under the GPL or similar open-source license. It would probably be more accurate to say that Oracle "sponsors" both BerkeleyDB and InnoDB.
It's all about being an unabashed hypocrite
Widenius was originally able to control MySQL by insisting that the copyright for all code contributed by outsiders be assigned to MySQL AB. By doing this, Widenius was able to "dual-license" MySQL, with both a free GPL version and a paid commercial version.
This licensing scheme was good enough when Widenius was in control of MySQL AB, but now that Oracle is buying Sun, suddenly Widenius wants both the licensing scheme changed to something that would allow his new company to sell modified copies without having to release the source code for their changes, and to have Oracle turn over control of MySQL to someone other than Oracle - perhaps the EU should consider (nudge nudge, wink wink) his new company, Monty Program AB?
Calls the GPL licensing scheme an "infection", wants the EU to violate international treaties
You can read more about the attempt to get the Europeans to retroactively change the licensing scheme from the GPL to something more "Monty Widenius-friendly":
In other words, he wants the European Union to violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Bern Convention on Copyrights and retroactively change the license from the GPL, which requires him to share any changes he makes to source code covered by the GPL, to a license that would let him take from the original authors, but not give back anything in return.
When we were kids, our parents told us "share and share alike." The authors who contributed source code under the GPL adhered to this principle. If you don't want to share your changes, simply don't "borrow" their
They may have third party software that uses MySQL via PHP
PHP is under a GPL-incompatible license. If Oracle terminates the FOSS exception for new versions of the MySQL client library, hosts won't be able to use PHP with new versions of the MySQL client library.
you use one of the permissively-licensed MySQL client libraries.
I've read posturing from MySQL AB or Sun (I don't remember which) that the permissive licenses on these client libraries are invalid because either A. the very act of using MySQL's wire protocol is considered "combining modules into one Program", B. MySQL uses patented methods licensed only for use with programs that use the GPL client library, or C. both. It might be FUD, but FUD can be effective in today's lawsuit-happy business environment.
Yeah so what is the issue here? What exactly is Monty trying to rescue? Does MySQL contain any IP that Oracle owns that is not covered by the GPL code license?
He explains in the related blog post that the founders (presumably meaning Widenius and Axmark) received "less than 12% of the deal", which is quite believable.
The EUR 16 million figure is from Widenius' Wikipedia entry. (Which is famously served by MySQL.:)
In any case, this large lump of cash is only about half what Sun or Oracle would spend on MySQL R&D in just one year, and obviously a small fraction of what would be needed to buy it back - especially after the sale to Oracle is concluded, and assuming the new owner wants to sell.
you had me at #!
Sooo, To understand the basics here...
/. entry, and even the glorious Number 2 (southpark reference) has problems with his logic on property rights (when it suits his coffers).
... Now, keep sending those letters.
Monty wants to keep the internet free, and that is somehow connected to his old, crappy product being "freed" from the rightful owner. Uhuh, riiiiight.
I read the tripe of a blog-entry, and I am disgusted. This man seems to write as bad as he codes. Aside from quite healthy competition, PostgreSQL comes to mind. Especially the feature of stored procedures (don't bitch, I am sure they included that after Monty sold it.)
First and foremost, I need to point out the painfully obvious:
The Infrastructure of the Internet is NOT free. The pipes are owned by companies, and they can rightfully charge for the usage. No second-rate celebunerd can change that. You have to be be BONO to be recognized beyond a casual
To add to that, Oracle, in all their evil splendor, has the complete right, if it owns SUN, to modify, improve, abolish any and all property that came with the purchase. Who knows, maybe they will turn MySQL into something usable by serious programmers! Oh, wait, they HAVE a product, closed source, that has been established to work for decades, and that profitable companies pay good money for when it comes to managing data... I am shocked and awed!
I know this is a very difficult thing to understand for you young freetards out there: Stuff costs money. Things and services. Like iPods, cleaning cars, using the turnpike, going to the pool, beer, hookers, and other fun stuff.
And again, why is there no concerted effort to produce a GOOD product? MySQL can go away tomorrow and no one will give a flying rat's ass. Your SQL statements will still work, and all those young PHP coders will flock to competitors that suits their freetard mentality.
Maybe someone can explain to me that whole FREE mentality. Somehow, everything has to be free if you WANT it. And then what? The pattern keeps emerging that those pining for the FREE fjords fail to differentiate other people's work from theirs. Others should provide free tools, free software, free this free that. But somehow, they want to charge for the result of using said tools.
That, Gentlemen (and those high regarded few Ladies), is the problem here.
I call Monty in reference to a Family Guy episode: HE IS A BIG FAT PHONY
_______________________________
Oracle actually wants it, and it's worth 10-100x what Monty could personally afford.
you had me at #!
I also don't entirely understand why one would buy a proprietary license for a GPL product?
Read the GPL. It specifically prevents a variety of antisocial activities like not releasing the source code, not releasing it as a part of a non GPL program, etc.
If you can buy the same code under another license that basically has no obligations other than "send us the money", then you have ... no obligations, which can be convenient primarily for anti-social folks. Dual licensing is basically the equivalent of the catholic church selling indulgences, its OK to sin, if you send us some cold hard cash.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
.... is the preposterous idea that Sun and/or Oracle care a whit about online petitions or email campaigns.
Unless Monty is just indulging in a popularity survey. In which case he forgot to ask us how we 'felt' about this.
I, BTW, feel like you've gotten your money and want your cake back as well. Good luck. Fork it and compete with your previous employer, ok?
sheesh.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just to be clear, GPLed code does not equate to the same as "public domain". As for Sun, no, they cannot. Once code is GPLed it is GPLed. You are correct if Oracle took it over; they cannot stop development, if they tried to then Oracle would forfeit their use of the GPLed code.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I'm sorry, but Monty sold his baby, and got well paid for it. If I could sell any program I wrote for a fraction of what he sold MySQL for, and they kicked me out of working on it, I could do any number of any other things I wanted to work on in life. Come on Monty, attack P=NP. It's not like you need a job.
This is my sig.
If Oracle cuts MySQL loose, does Monty have to give back the billion dollars?
And fork you too, Monty/Sun/Oracle.
It may not be as fast as MySQL, but it's certainly more robust and capable. If you look at the core of ORACLE's design (which is pretty damned good), you'll find that Postgresql has similar design principals.
When it comes to data loss, I'd rather the more robust database than the fastest one.
*** Don't be dull.***
It's like you broke up with your car and then go crying it back when it has found a new owner, while you're having no luck finding another car.
It's like you broke up with your parents and then go crying back when they have found a new tenant, while you're having no luck finding another basement.
Infuriate left and right
1. MySQL would need to be a sufficiently revenue-producing entity in order for it to sustain internal development at Oracle. What those revenue producing metrics are is impossible to know from the outside. I'm a pessimist though and would estimate whatever MySQL dev is done in-house will probably get chopped by 2/3 in order to make the revenue fit into their financing targets. That's assuming Oracle doesn't abandon it right away.
2. This $1 Billion number being thrown around is a PR number. I'd guess Monty's gotten 10's of thousands of dollars for closing the deal. Other than that his payout won't come. He won't get paid because the value of the deal is typically based on payouts based on future earnings. We know Sun couldn't turn it into a bigger revenue producer. With the change in ownership, I'm sure Oracle will renege on whatever deal he had with Sun and tell Monty to "Go pound sand. Your issue is with the Sun Officers who signed the deal, not Oracle."
3. I bet he's got a non-compete that prevents him from directly starting something. Which, Oracle would enforce while pretending about other parts of the agreement. That's why he's got this petition thing.
Monty pretended those future payouts would work, got screwed by Sun, and now he's trying to get back in the game.
Today's entrepreneurial lesson: get paid today, not tomorrow.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Killing MySQL is not what we should be concerned about. Oracle taking control of MySQL's direction is a far greater danger. It will be harder to build a new community around a fork if MySQL still exists. If Oracle kills MySQL, a new fork will appear overnight and people will flock to it. If they keep MySQL around and do everything in their power to control it, Oracle can virtually ensure that MySQL never becomes a real threat to its proprietary database. My guess is that Oracle will keep MySQL but they will position it as a lightweight database server for small to mid-size databases. They'll push people toward their proprietary database for a "REAL" enterprise database.
If you look a little closer at his words, you'll see that he's really saying MySQL can't succeed commercially as open source. This is, of course, true: a product that isn't commercially maintained can't be a commercial success. Fortunately, it doesn't need to be a commercial success in order to succeed.
Personally, I feel the most reasonable interpretation (from the standpoint of being consistent and, well, logical) would be that linking does *not* create a derivative work (for example, is Firefox a derivative of the Flash plugin, or Flash plugin a derivative of Firefox? Seems to me they are fairly independent works that use the mechanism of dynamic linking to work together.)
No one claims that Firefox is a derivative of Flash, or vice versa. What is claimed is that the resulting memory space with both objects loaded is a derivative work of each, which can only be created with the license-granted consent of the copyright holders of both objects. The trick: how strong is this argument since it applies only to the ephemeral address space created at runtime by the user and not, say, by Mozilla or Adobe?
In the obvious case of MegaCo distributes foo that always links dynamically to libgpled.so, one can argue that MegaCo is effectively creating that combined object because there is no other way that their software could be used. But IANAL, of course, and I think the real lawyers (and judges) haven't fully settled the question.
It basically goes like this "we got paid by the folks who wanted MySQL for proprietary software to make enhancements that we could, if we wanted, include in the GPL versions".
This asymmetry - when a customer pays MySQL for a proprietary license, MySQL gets developer attention it would not get otherwise - may have distorted the free database market giving MySQL more resources than it rightfully deserved.
But that's a good subject for a thesis I am not willing to defend.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Quoting the reference I linked to and highlighting the important bit:
"You can change the SQL mode at runtime by using a SET [GLOBAL|SESSION] sql_mode='modes' statement to set the sql_mode system value. Setting the GLOBAL variable requires the SUPER privilege and affects the operation of all clients that connect from that time on. Setting the SESSION variable affects only the current client. Any client can change its own session sql_mode value at any time."
Yes, you have to be the superuser to change the global mode. And the fact that it says "Server SQL Modes", but they're not really enforced by the server even if you change the defaults should a client decide to go sloppy, is exactly why this behavior is so shady. It's an example of exactly why the upthread idea of PostgreSQL trying to be as correct as possible by design from day one is so important--you can't just bolt this stuff on later and expect there to not be a hole left behind.
PostgreSQL 8.4 supports partial vacuum, meaning that old data usually doesn't need to be VACUUMed. That alleviates many of the complaints surrounding VACUUM.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
If you're a GPL fundamentalist you get what you deserve: you get to run a GPL MySQL version.